My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

mojo8427

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
166
Location
Central Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
How is a herbal blend even related to the matter at hand? I'll tell you I make my own herbal blend for corals.. I will also tell you to not use it on some things. Just like the whole don't use coral rx on deep water acros thing, or with some inverts. So 100% safe I don't agree yet with, nor do I know what's in it. Nor am I going to read 88 pages about more speculation. Again how do we even know it wasn't the tank owner or conditions? This now you know I don't work for them.

How can you even call someone a nobody, how do you even know what they did during or before that is just foolish.
You can just read the first page. Uwc says 100% reef safe!!! A miracle product! Then read the last page. Death and destruction. Related due to the consistent practices of this company going back years.

foolish would be an undying belief in the benevolent practices of any company. Much less one that has provided such wildly inconsistent statements about their product.

I’d suggest you may have a personal beef with taricha. I don’t know the history but you sure do your best to knock his methods and reference years ago conflict. Fwiw, he’s responded professionally and with substance to all your issues. Not that he needs a defender, he’s done a great job of it.
 

mojo8427

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
166
Location
Central Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@mojo8427 So how do we not know it was the toxins from the flat worms, or other issues? Also ironically from the same person who started this thread.

How do you know it wasn’t the product that killed the sps?

they didn’t register the chemical against the law. Maybe you think the epa told them not to worry about it like they did with vibrant lol.

Why did UWC say he would register it but didn’t?

why did they pull that product and replace it with V2.

at some point you just need to take a step back and decide if their comments and statements warrant your ever present defense.
 

Duffer

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
1,416
Location
Rochester,NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You didn't read the whole thread did you? It's not about "it's your choice to use it or not". It's about that I chose to use this product based on the claims its bacteria that targets the algae. However, it appears it's not, which is called false advertisement. This false advertisement is a possible reason I crashed my tank and dosed a chemical that I wouldn't want around me let alone my 4 year old son who helps me do water changes, etc.

The company has been given multiple opportunities to explain why the tests @taricha and others are doing that show similar traits to Algaefix and yet they don't say anything.
I get that, and at the time they looked quite foolish, as soon as the bashing started the table turned. I was reading everything and was on the fence with them as their responses were pretty lame, but as soon as the bashing started my opinion turned drastically.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I guess if I was Jeff - I would make the same response. 1. He is being accused of being a 'fraud' - using pseudoscience. 2. I agree with you - that on the surface the response does not answer the question. But - I guess see #1. There seems to be a 'thing' - how do we debunk a product. In doing so - testing is done that is not designed for what its originally designed for. This has become a theme. With no vetting - except for 'popular' opinion. To me that is not correct.
Yep, I understand points 1 and 2. Being accused of fraud would be very unpleasant. I personally was disappointed with the nature of Jeff’s response.

I don’t sense an uptick in debunking, seems like the same level since the internet was invented :) I wish there was a consumer union for hobby products.

The citizen scientists and test equipment hackers who are investigating hobby subjects should be encouraged and when necessary coached about drawing conclusions from experimental data. The serious investigator will be encouraged by the carefully worded challenge. When the responses stick to the science, they are great reading.
 

JCOLE

Grower of the Small Polyps
View Badges
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
11,016
Location
Charlotte, NC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I get that, and at the time they looked quite foolish, as soon as the bashing started the table turned. I was reading everything and was on the fence with them as their responses were pretty lame, but as soon as the bashing started my opinion turned drastically.

Bashing? All I see are hobbyists wanting answers from a company that is labeling it as one thing but it appears to be something else. If true then it is not only unethical due to harm it could cause to people, but it's also Illegal. If that's your definition of bashing then I suppose you are correct.

I have no skin in this game. I am no scientist. I can only digest what other's put before me. @taricha has shown it has similar traits to Algaefix. That is the question for the company and everyone is looking for that answer. They said to me that they should show what this is a month ago, and still nothing.

Again, this thread could have been put to bed by the first couple pages if they would have just held to their word and explained a couple things. But yet, 29 pages in and here we are still.
 

mojo8427

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
166
Location
Central Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Honestly in regards to this object. My mind is made
Bashing? All I see are hobbyists wanting answers from a company that is labeling it as one thing but it appears to be something else. If true then it is not only unethical due to harm it could cause to people, but it's also Illegal. If that's your definition of bashing then I suppose you are correct.

I have no skin in this game. I am no scientist. I can only digest what other's put before me. @taricha has shown it has similar traits to Algaefix. That is the question for the company and everyone is looking for that answer. They said to me that they should show what this is a month ago, and still nothing.

Again, this thread could have been put to bed by the first couple pages if they would have just held to their word and explained a couple things. But yet, 29 pages in and here we are still.
Couldn't agree more.

I came in neutral and found this thread a good entertaining read. The more UWC deflected, promised transparency then delayed, only to imply there was never any bacteria in Vibrant pushed me into the dishonest company side of the fence. Asking a company to be honest with their customers ought to be everyones priority. Especially when so many have reported negative effects after using their products, Vibrant and Purge.

That motivated me to read their sponsored product threads. Unsurprisingly there is more of the same dishonesty from this company. I wonder if anyone has their Purge product and can compare it to API Melafix?

Other then a gut suspicion, id bet this cleaning company simply used API AlgaeFix on their customers tanks. People liked AlgaeFix's results and customers asked what was their secret. Oh course a maintenance company couldn't just say we picked up a bottle of AlgaeFix at the LFS and dosed per the directions on the bottle. They'd lose customers - thus, a tank maintenance company discovered a super secret bacteria that was, isolated and bottled.

Dr. Tim patented his bacteria, CV for reference below. Why would this company not patent this super secret bacteria?

 

nereefpat

7500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
7,929
Reaction score
8,687
Location
Central Nebraska
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
My mind is made too.

It's made from @taricha 's work showing how little bacteria is in it and how similarly it looks like algaefix in every test he can come up with.

It's also made from the company's response here in post 508: "Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the abstract is used. All created by BACTERIA."

It's an algaecide with a very small amount of bacteria (intentional or not) and possibly a small amount of carbon dosing. "The 95% bacteria blend" is their way of saying that it's an algaecide that is made by bacteria.

It's intentionally misleading. This has never been about 'does it work'? This has been about 'what's in it'? The company would have been better off going with "proprietary blend" instead of saying it's bacteria. It's just like Chemiclean saying "does not contain erythromycin succinate" while it contains a different salt of erythromycin. That stuff works too. The problem I and others have is that the product label is somewhere between deliberately misleading and lying. The other issue is that some algaecides have health effects, and should be included in a right-to-know sort of way.
 

Duffer

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
1,416
Location
Rochester,NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Bashing? All I see are hobbyists wanting answers from a company that is labeling it as one thing but it appears to be something else. If true then it is not only unethical due to harm it could cause to people, but it's also Illegal. If that's your definition of bashing then I suppose you are correct.

I have no skin in this game. I am no scientist. I can only digest what other's put before me. @taricha has shown it has similar traits to Algaefix. That is the question for the company and everyone is looking for that answer. They said to me that they should show what this is a month ago, and still nothing.

Again, this thread could have been put to bed by the first couple pages if they would have just held to their word and explained a couple things. But yet, 29 pages in and here we are still.
I agree with you wholeheartly on that assessment, and i to would want that and was hoping for an answer and still am. I used vibrant and had no issues with it..at first glance when i started to read this post it did not change my mind,but when the vendor decided to not come thru it swayed me to look elsewhere as i would not want to put my tank in harms way.


I hope things turn now and vibrant see's where he is not playing this in the right way. I don't expect him to give up his methods, but there are ways he can communicate better.
 

Peace River

Thrive Master
View Badges
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
21,466
Reaction score
164,293
Location
USA
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
We highly encourage healthy debate here and understand not everyone will agree on all issues. In fact, we value healthy and even lively discussion of hobby issues and questions...this actually leads to advancements in our hobby, so we ALL win through these debates. What is not acceptable is the negativity, name calling, belittling attitude towards other members or the topics being discussed. We are not asking you to cease debating your positions. What we are asking is that you do so in a healthy, respectful manner.
 
OP
OP
S

ScottB

7500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
7,873
Reaction score
12,155
Location
Fairfield County, CT
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
We highly encourage healthy debate here and understand not everyone will agree on all issues. In fact, we value healthy and even lively discussion of hobby issues and questions...this actually leads to advancements in our hobby, so we ALL win through these debates. What is not acceptable is the negativity, name calling, belittling attitude towards other members or the topics being discussed. We are not asking you to cease debating your positions. What we are asking is that you do so in a healthy, respectful manner.
Thank you for this reminder.

@taricha I certainly appreciate your work on this, and favor your idea of consolidating this test series/results and moving it to the Chemistry forum.

I started the thread in the SPS forum intentionally, as most of the (rather rare) negative outcomes seemed to affect SPS keepers.

Perhaps in the Chemistry forum, we can keep the discussion better focused on all the cool sciency stuff :)

May wanna give RHF a little heads up so he can "prep". :p
 

SamMule

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Messages
1,360
Reaction score
1,257
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thank you for this reminder.

@taricha I certainly appreciate your work on this, and favor your idea of consolidating this test series/results and moving it to the Chemistry forum.

I started the thread in the SPS forum intentionally, as most of the (rather rare) negative outcomes seemed to affect SPS keepers.

Perhaps in the Chemistry forum, we can keep the discussion better focused on all the cool sciency stuff :)

May wanna give RHF a little heads up so he can "prep". :p

Funny Face Reaction GIF


Seriously though.... As this thread was started with obviously good intentions, it has slowly become the epitome of what is wrong with the internet....
Constructive conversation that spiraled out of control because one or more
E-go was bruised.
Turned into " A Pack 'o dogs on a three legged cat"
 

LgTas

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
510
Reaction score
523
Location
Tasmania
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
One thing I find pretty frustrating is the lack of effort some are putting in to challenging the results of @taricha's experiments.

It's very easy to say you should have done x y and z but I don't see that backed up with actually doing it. It's also clear that some seem to have a lot of (vested?) interest in sowing doubt when UWC have already dug their own grave with their replies.
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,573
Reaction score
7,031
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
One thing I find pretty frustrating is the lack of effort some are putting in to challenging the results of @taricha's experiments.

It's very easy to say you should have done x y and z but I don't see that backed up with actually doing it. It's also clear that some seem to have a lot of (vested?) interest in sowing doubt when UWC have already dug their own grave with their replies.
Interesting perspective. Here’s my take on challenging experimenters.

Challenging the interpretations and the results of experiments is part of the scientific process. Challenging is a good thing. What happens too often is an armchair scientist, who tends to sow doubt rather than provide scientific data, will obsess over challenging, eventually becoming more troll than valued opponent. Very tiresome and tends to cause the experimenter to discount what‘s being said.
 

LgTas

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
510
Reaction score
523
Location
Tasmania
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Interesting perspective. Here’s my take on challenging experimenters.

Challenging the interpretations and the results of experiments is part of the scientific process. Challenging is a good thing. What happens too often is an armchair scientist, who tends to sow doubt rather than provide scientific data, will obsess over challenging, eventually becoming more troll than valued opponent. Very tiresome and tends to cause the experimenter to discount what‘s being said.
Exactly! (I come from a scientific background btw). Initially the questions were based on specifics of the initial experiments so were very valid... what happened post the initial explanations given to these has been a broader "flawed experimentation argument" with little to back this up.

I don't want to broad brush everyone as some questions have improved the outcomes of this thread but one or two commentators have continued the negativity well after their initial concerns were addressed.

Anyway it's all water under the bridge as @UWC have unintentionally confirmed many of the test results.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
One thing I find pretty frustrating is the lack of effort some are putting in to challenging the results of @taricha's experiments.

It's very easy to say you should have done x y and z but I don't see that backed up with actually doing it. It's also clear that some seem to have a lot of (vested?) interest in sowing doubt when UWC have already dug their own grave with their replies.
I have not heard anyone saying 'you should have done this or that'. I have heard (and have said) - something along the lines of 'If you really wanted to prove xxxx you could do yyyy'. Though xxxx suggests you're correct, perhaps some other confirmatory experiments would bolster the case. BTW - this is not directed at Taricha - its a general comment.

There is a well known former poster here - who runs an excellent blog who often made the point: If you make a statement, its not everyone else's job to 'prove it' (or disprove it) - its the original 'statement-maker' that has the responsible to prove their statements are correct. FWIW - in this thread - I really appreciate Taricha's attempt to bolster his case.

BTW - I for one - have questioned some of the conclusions here - that was not done with just a flip of a couple pages. It involved reading the actual studies that were sited, checking multiple federal rules and regulations, taking perhaps hours of time - and doing a fair bit of research.

I might also make this point. Its odd to me - that in some posts - like yours @LgTas there is often this 'hint of conspiracy - "It's also clear that some seem to have a lot of (vested?) interest in sowing doubt when....". Multiple people (including myself) - have stated we have no financial or other interest in UWC - and no personal or other interest in bashing @taricha.
 
Back
Top